NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOUALEM HABIB,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. TOTE SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 35073
D.C. No. 2:14

- cv - 01685

- RSL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017 **
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Boualem Habib appeals pro se from the distr ict court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging claims under Title VII and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo , and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc. , 575 F.3 d 1040, 1047

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35073

(9th Cir. 2009)

. We affirm. Summary judgment on Habib’s disparate treatment claims was proper
because Habib failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Habi b was pretextual. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc. , 615 F.3d 1151, 1155

- 56 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth burden

- shifting framework for Title VII disparate treatment
claim under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973)); Godwin v.
Hunt Wesso n, Inc. , 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The prima facie case may be based either on a presumption arising from the factors such as those set
forth in McDonnell Douglas , or by more direct evidence of discriminatory intent.”); Blackburn v. State , 375 P.3d 1076, 1080 (Wash. 2016) (en banc) (Washington courts look to Title VII for guidance in disparate treatment cases under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Habib’s hostile
work environment claim under the WLAD because Habib failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendant authorized, knew of, or should have known of any
harassment. See Blackburn , 375 P.3d at 1081 (elements of hostile work
environment claim under WLAD ); Glasgow v. G a. - Pac. Corp. , 693 P.2d 708, 711

- 12 ( Wash. 1985) (en banc) ( “[E]mployee must show that the employer

. . . authorized, knew, or should have known of harassment and

. . . failed to take3 17

- 35073

reasonably prompt and adequate corrective acti on .” ). Because Habib does not challenge the district court’s determination that
Habib failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on his hostile work
environment claim under federal law , we do not consider Habib’s arguments regarding the merits of t his c laim. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider Habib’s contentions regarding retaliation because the operative first amended complaint does not contain a retaliation claim

. See
Ramirez v. Coun ty of San Bernardino , 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“ [A] n amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as

non - existent.” (citation and int ernal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.